Is Federer the greatest player ever?
Dan Weil
Special to FOXSports.com, Updated 8 hours ago STORY TOOLS:
print
send
blog LIKE THIS STORY?
Roger Federer is the best tennis player ever ... or is he?
That is the debate that rages after Federer, 25, won Wimbledon Sunday for the fifth time in a row. The title tied Federer with Bjorn Borg for the modern-day record for most consecutive Wimbledon crowns.
The Swiss magician also is only two Wimbledon trophies behind Pete Sampras and has one more than Sampras did at the same age. Federer, with 11 major titles, is within striking distance of Sampras' record of 14 and already tied with Borg.
In some ways, Borg's streak at Wimbledon (1976-80) is more impressive than Federer's because three of the Swede's Wimbledon triumphs came right after he won the French Open (1978-80), notes Jimmy Arias, a former touring pro who is now a TV commentator.
Some experts also argue that Federer faces less depth at the top of the game than either Sampras or Borg. But as TV commentator Cliff Drysdale points out, "It's not easy for other players to develop as potential depth," when Federer and Wimbledon runner-up Rafael Nadal are dominating the game so completely.
Drysdale, who played against (and beat) Rod Laver in the 1960s, calls Federer the best of all-time.
But others are hesitant. Sampras himself and Boris Becker, who won Wimbledon three times, say Federer benefits from not having to face a top serve-and-volleyer like themselves.
Paul Annacone, who coached Sampras and was a tour player himself, doesn't put much stock in that argument. "The best players tend to conform to what's successful" in terms of playing style, he said. "Great players can do that. Borg did it, Pete did it. In 2001, when Roger beat Pete at Wimbledon (ending his string of seven Wimbledon titles in eight years), Roger served and volleyed an incredible amount. That tells you a lot about his game and talent."
Borg was a natural baseliner, who played serve-and-volley to deal with the fast courts and uneven bounces that were common at Wimbledon in his day. The court conditions weren't much different for Sampras, but now the courts are markedly slower and the ball bounces much higher.
Those changes raise another issue: can Federer hold back Nadal on grass? Sunday's match looked like Nadal's for the taking when he had four chances to break Federer's serve in the fifth set.
"Federer was semi-panicking, but Nadal didn't quite believe in himself enough to win," Arias said. "He might be thinking now that 'I'm as good as Federer on grass.' "
And that raises the possibility that Nadal can challenge Federer on the hard courts of the U.S. Open and the Australian Open too. John McEnroe said Sunday that Nadal may have a better chance at Wimbledon than the U.S. Open because the ball doesn't carry through the court as fast on grass. But one could also argue that the U.S. Open is more to Nadal's advantage because the hard courts give his topspin more bite.
Drysdale says that the basic problem for Nadal at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open is that "there are six to eight players that when they are having an on day can beat Nadal on courts other than clay. Federer's game sort of plays into Nadal's strength. He's not a baseline, flat-ball, big hitter like Mikhail Youzhny and Tomas Berdych."
Nadal was fortunate to get to the final of Wimbledon, Drysdale noted, escaping a two-set deficit to Youzhny, a five-set match against Robin Soderling and an early hole against Novak Djokovic.
"Nadal will have a problem slam in and slam out getting to the final against Federer," he said.
If Nadal was lucky enough to beat Federer at Wimbledon, it would be interesting to see how Federer reacted. "Would he be like Borg and just walk away?" Arias asked. Borg quit at the age of 25, after McEnroe broke his streak at Wimbledon in 1981 and then beat him in the final of the U.S. Open too.
But most agree it's beneficial for Federer to have a challenger. "When you have two guys at that level, they keep pushing each other. And that's good for the game," Annacone said. "It's like Pete (Sampras) and Andre (Agassi). Pete knew he had to keep getting better, because Andre was pushing him."
The burden of history has taken its toll a bit on Federer. He is playing a lot less free and easy than he did in 2004, when he first rose to No. 1 in the world. Even at Roland Garros this year, with Nadal going into the final as a big favorite and trying to win his third title in a row, the pressure was on Federer, Arias noted.
advertisement
STORY TOOLS:
print
send
blog LIKE THIS STORY?
That's because he was trying to win the one major title that has eluded him and to set himself up for winning all four majors in a single year.
In Arias and many others' opinion, Federer can't definitively be called the greatest of all time unless he wins the French Open. Laver won all four slams in 1962 and 1969 and couldn't play the majors in between those years, because he turned professional. "I still put Laver as the best," Arias said.
Still, he said that Federer stands apart for what he has done since 2004, compiling a record of 283-20 beginning then. "There has never been someone so consistent at each event" for such an extended period, he said.
Dan Weil is a FOXSports.com contributor, and can be reached at his e-mail address: dancweil@aol.com
